and boy, does this need an amendment: when a farmer can be sued and forced to not grow food for his own family, and the suit is found valid because of Article I Section 8 we have a huge problem.
There's a structure in the US and its states that regulate what (subsidized?) farmers can grow. I don't know if it's solely the USDA. Anyway, if a farmer is supposed to be growing soybeans, they cannot grow (for example) potatoes. There have been cases of farmers having crops meant for family consumption that have been sued (or raided? -- something way over the top for the violation, anyway). IIRC, the big gun that it used is the interstate commerce clause. So if a spud farmer in Idaho wants a few bushels of wheat for his family, his growing it would (supposedly) impact market value on wheat prices.
There's some scary stuff in the farming regulation. There was a law in the works called NAIS (national animal ID system)that severely intrudes on people's right to raise their own livestock. It was stirring up a storm of controversy in homesteaders' circles a decade ago, though I don't know the current state of that is.
A mischaracterization of Wickard v. Filburn, which is nonetheless one of the worst decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court - taking an unusual circumstance that obtained during WW@ and generalizing it to a fundamental aspect of the Commerce power. However, it's sort of off-topic here. Wikipedia has an extensive discussion of the case.
> A mischaracterization of Wickard v. Filburn, which is nonetheless one of the worst decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court - taking an unusual circumstance that obtained during WW@
While, the court process and decisions occurred during WW2, the law and the acts which, under it, created the controversy occurred before US involvement in WW2, it was more about the Great Depression/New Deal than the War.
You're right, but I have always felt that the urgency of the wartime context tilted the balance of the court's opinion towards an overbroad endorsement of the government's side, and that that tilt has persisted via precedent.
I will go back and reread it to see whether that impression is correct or whether I've imputed my own bias to the court's decision since I read it, but given that I'm generally of a more statist bent than most people here I don't think it's just personal bias.
Wickard v. Filburn established that all activity, including washing your dishes, is economic activity that congress can regulate under the commerce clause.
No, Wickard v. Filburn didn't establish that that is true of "all activity", and if one thought that it did then one would be forced to conclude that that result was overturned in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
